California Department of Transportation

Project Management

1999/00 Performance Report

CAPITAL SUPPORT PERFORMANCE MEASURES

II.  SUMMARY OF CAPITAL SUPPORT PERFORMANCE MEASURES

PM # Description Target 1999/00 Achievement
1
Capital Support in Context
None
Info Only
2
Support / Capital
Trend
44%
3
Quality
TBD
Not available
4
Project Delivery(#)
> 90%
95%
5
Project Delivery (Programmed$)
>100%
104%
6
Days Worked / Day Allotted
<112%
123%
7
Award$ / Programmed$
85%-100%
80%
8
PFE$ / Award$
<100%
99%
9
PE$ / PFE$
<103%
103%
10
Capital Delivery
Not available
Eliminated
11
Act PjD Supp$ / Prog PjD Supp$
TBD
83%
12
Act PjD Supp$ / Prog PjD Supp$
TBD
81%

III.  RELATIONSHIP OF PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE MEASURES

During the process of developing corporate performance measures, it was decided that Caltransí programs would supply indicators to the departmental measures. The Project Management Program provided five indicators for the corporate performance measure Project Delivery. Two of these indicators are supplied directly by program performance measures; one is a new measure; one is a multiplicative composite of three program measures; and one is a weighted average of two program measures. These are summarized below:

Departmental Performance Measure-Project Delivery

Corporate Indicator Capital Support Measure
Quality
COS PM#3--Rate Final Product
Time Growth
New Measure
Capital Cost Growth
PM#7 X PM#8 X PM#9
OR:
Capital Delivery
COS PM#5
Support Cost
Weight average of PM#11 and PM#12
OR:

Data used in the development of program Performance Measures 1 and 2 will be used by Corporate Administration to supply indicators for the corporate performance measure "Managing Resources". Achieved performance levels for the above five indicators are presented in the next page for those indicators that data are available.

A.  Quality Indicator

As stated previously, a methodology, business rules, and the electronic tool necessary for implementation of this measure are expected to be in place during the 2000/01 FY.

B.  Time Growth Indicator

This indicator measures the number of projects scheduled for construction completion (construct contract acceptance, or CCA) that were completed in the fiscal year or earlier, as a percentage of the total number of projects scheduled for construction completion in the fiscal year. This measures the Departmentís ability to complete projects on or ahead of schedule. A baseline was developed at the beginning of the FY 1998/99. Completion rates for the 1998/99 and 1999/00 fiscal years are:

FY 98/99 FY 99/00

 

58.3% 81.1%

This is the second year for this performance measurement. The results for the two years clearly indicate a need to better estimate future completion dates and to more accurately develop baseline values. Efforts are currently underway towards meeting both of these requirements. The target or goal for this indicator should be at least 90%.

C.  Capital Cost Growth Indicator

The capital cost growth indicator is a composite index that approximates final estimates to original programmed amounts, and is determined by multiplying PMs 7, 8 and 9. It measures the Departmentís overall success in delivering projects within budget over the entire project life cycle. Achieved performance for project delivery within budget in the 1998/99 and 1999/00 fiscal years are shown below:

FY 98/99 FY 99/00

 

83.5% 82.0%

It is important to emphasize that the above values are indexes only since, in each fiscal year, they are determined using different sets of projects for each component measure (PMs 7, 8 and 9). However, over time, this indicator can become an effective comparative measure of overall accuracy in estimating, programming and budgeting.

The target or goal for this indicator should be not greater than 100%.

D.  Capital Delivery Indicator

As discussed previously, Performance Measure #5 is reported to the CTC as the measure of capital delivery. It measures the dollar value of projects delivered to the programmed amount for those projects. Or, put in other terms, it measures the Departmentís performance in completing the design of programmed projects within or ahead of schedule. Below are the percentage results for the fiscal years from 1993/94 through 1999/00:

FY 93/94 FY 94/95 95 Alloc. Plan FY 96/97 FY 97/98 FY 98/99 FY 99/00
110% 73% 118% 111% 117% 117% 104%

The target or goal for this indicator should be at least 100%.

E.  Support Cost Indicator

This indicator is a weighted average of Performance Measures 11 and 12 obtained by combining total support costs of Environmental, Design, Right of Way and Construction. It measures the Departmentís overall success in keeping total support expenditures within project support budgets. Support cost performance levels for the 1998/99 and 1999/00 fiscal years are:

FY 98/99 FY 99/00

 

77.6% 82.4%

Similar to the Capital Cost Growth Indicator, it should be emphasized that two different sets of projects are involved in the two component measures (PMs #11 and 12). This indicator can also be an effective comparative measure over time as well as a measurement for continuous improvement.

The target for this indicator should be in the range of 80% - 100%.

Previous Page